Re: Oh no, someone else has been at the Voynich manuscript ... but wait ...

"Farley P. Katz" <[email protected]> Tue, 11 Jun 2019 22:21:30 -0500

Newsgroups	gmane.education.classics
Message-ID	<CAJeimhXmx778x2Vorv=KYxGtKEZ-B+3R5aHsRgyNg-=kMN+aXg@mail.gmail.com>

The very next day after the last post here, the University of Britstol
withdrew and supppressed its news release that the Voynich had been decoded
See
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgizmodo.com%2Fsorry-it-looks-like-a-researcher-didn-t-just-crack-the-1834841706&amp;data=02%7C01%7CCLASSICS-L%40lsv.uky.edu%7Cf4b62e4c07114012b57908d6eee5178a%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C1%7C636959065049589405&amp;sdata=EMc8cM1P6eT3ebykA9LMweW5ie3oa6TQG0D5HNIYHYw%3D&amp;reserved=0


On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:29 PM Ralph Hancock <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Yes, of course what I just wrote is speculation. I was arguing against the
> genuineness of the manuscript, and trying to do so by speculating on why
> and how it could be faked. The 'forger' -- which I am using in quotes in
> case by some small chance the thing might be genuine -- may have salted his
> fake with a few comprehensible sentences, and yes, there are a few whole
> sentences that Cheshire has 'decoded' -- see the original article. I think
> you have missed the point of my last remark.
>
> RH
>